I was told that as a non-Anglican it would never make sense. And I must confess to finding Anglicanism truly an incomprehensible mystery, although characters such as York's John Sentamu have certain appeal.

Because of things like "Divine Right" some of the people during that time literally thought that the King/Queen was a representative of God and thus things like the Monarch leading the Church made sense for some of them. But now that we look at it, the whole notion doesn't make sense to me.

By Anglicanism are you referring to the Anglican Communion which is the world-wide organization of Churches of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is the First among Equals? or to worship as based on the Book of Common Prayer? Or is there something else that you are thinking of please?

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

By Anglicanism are you referring to the Anglican Communion which is the world-wide organization of Churches of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is the First among Equals? or to worship as based on the Book of Common Prayer? Or is there something else that you are thinking of please?

By Anglicanism are you referring to the Anglican Communion which is the world-wide organization of Churches of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is the First among Equals? or to worship as based on the Book of Common Prayer? Or is there something else that you are thinking of please?

Well I mean everything all together....Like the history of it.

There is a thread or two on the forum in which this is discussed and, I will admit, I was part of them. I am Anglican, but in the U.S. which means that I am an Episcopalian.

I can give you some information here, if you like. It would be helpful if you could tell how much you already know or have seen/experienced as a place to start.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Conservative anglicanism, like of the NT Wright or CS Lewis Variety I can see what the genuine attraction to it is. but at the same time communion with Liberal anglicanism and the allowance of Homosexual marriage and etc I can't fathom how it could be attractable.

Conservative anglicanism, like of the NT Wright or CS Lewis Variety I can see what the genuine attraction to it is. but at the same time communion with Liberal anglicanism and the allowance of Homosexual marriage and etc I can't fathom how it could be attractable.

I agree. Coming from the protestant tradition, I can see how many would be attracted to conservative Anglicanism because the style of worship falls within their comfort zone. It contains some of the outward liturgical elements in worship, but not so much that people struggle with it. It's what I would call a "tweener" worship service. While I was searching this is how it was for me, anyway. In the end, I could not deny the claims of the Orthodox Church and knew that if I became Anglican it was merely a matter of time before I would not be satisfied. And so, I stepped outside of my "comfort zone" and committed myself to Orthodoxy.

My mother is a conservative Anglican. She and my father (May his memory be eternal) became Anglican later in life. My father commented that he loved the liturgy. (They did not know of the Orthodox Church.) My mom attended her first Orthodox liturgy this past Sunday, out of love for her daughter (me) in order to further understand the Orthodox Church. She commented that she saw many people from her Anglican church who had converted.

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

How very kind of you. How's the view from up there? This is the sort of response which drives people further off the path to the Orthodox Church. I embraced Orthodoxy in spite of comments like this. Surely not thanks to them.

What's that supposed to mean? I'm only expressing what I believe is the truth. I'm even harsher on myself and my own background prior to conversion than I am others. I didn't know telling the truth was wrong.

Quote

This is the sort of response which drives people further off the path to the Orthodox Church.

Then they are not worthy; there really is no way to put it. The reason it drives people away is because they are not fully committed yet to the truth; they want to have one hand on Orthodoxy and one hand on the front door outside. The Scriptures say that it is better to be cold than to be lukewarm; if they aren't going to fully commit themselves, then they can leave. If they have fully committed themselves, then it shouldn't bother them so much. I converted to the Orthodox faith 100% against the advice and approval of everyone around me and didn't look back; if someone as wretched as me could do it, then certainly those in better circumstances could do it as well.

Quote

I embraced Orthodoxy in spite of comments like this. Surely not thanks to them.

I embraced Orthodoxy against the wishes of everyone around me; it wasn't a "journey"--as if I should make God wait for when I'M READY (kinda prideful)--but a decision to submit to Orthodoxy in ALL aspects and do whatever it took the moment I logically discovered it was true. I don't get how people turn it into a "journey" and can delay conversion; if you are logically convinced that it is true (as I was) then why wouldn't you submit to it ASAP?

What's that supposed to mean? I'm only expressing what I believe is the truth. I'm even harsher on myself and my own background prior to conversion than I am others. I didn't know telling the truth was wrong.

Quote

This is the sort of response which drives people further off the path to the Orthodox Church.

Then they are not worthy; there really is no way to put it. The reason it drives people away is because they are not fully committed yet to the truth; they want to have one hand on Orthodoxy and one hand on the front door outside. The Scriptures say that it is better to be cold than to be lukewarm; if they aren't going to fully commit themselves, then they can leave. If they have fully committed themselves, then it shouldn't bother them so much. I converted to the Orthodox faith 100% against the advice and approval of everyone around me and didn't look back; if someone as wretched as me could do it, then certainly those in better circumstances could do it as well.

Quote

I embraced Orthodoxy in spite of comments like this. Surely not thanks to them.

I embraced Orthodoxy against the wishes of everyone around me; it wasn't a "journey"--as if I should make God wait for when I'M READY (kinda prideful)--but a decision to submit to Orthodoxy in ALL aspects and do whatever it took the moment I logically discovered it was true. I don't get how people turn it into a "journey" and can delay conversion; if you are logically convinced that it is true (as I was) then why wouldn't you submit to it ASAP?

If that's the case why is the tradition to have a catechumenate period of up to 3 years? You can be convinced logically, but still need to learn the rules and customs of the Church, her teachings, etc. For some that can come quickly, for some, more slowly, but having *some* time to adjust to it is (in my experience) helpful, and no doubt in the experience of others. Look at it this way - say you're not religious, and go to an Orthodox Church one weekend, and are baptised + chrismated the next: what then? You still need to learn to fast, pray, etc.

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

There is some of that in the anglicna church but one has to recognise there are really two factions in anglicanism and one will eventually drive the other out. NT Wright and CS Lewis are the best of what anglicanism has to offer even if I don't agree with them perfectly.

I embraced Orthodoxy against the wishes of everyone around me; it wasn't a "journey"--as if I should make God wait for when I'M READY (kinda prideful)--but a decision to submit to Orthodoxy in ALL aspects and do whatever it took the moment I logically discovered it was true. I don't get how people turn it into a "journey" and can delay conversion; if you are logically convinced that it is true (as I was) then why wouldn't you submit to it ASAP?

You're still in a journey ... like the rest of us ...

You've never been married or in a serious relationship. You haven't gone to college. You haven't had to support yourself with a job. You may think the Orthodox Church is great and to another person the Church is torment. Your hyperdoxy is not helping.

Speaking for myself alone, a lot of the appeal was the idea of the via media, that I could have my cake and eat it, too. There was something that seemed truly catholic in the idea that one could have a church where more traditional churches could exist side by side with more Evangelical expressions of Christianity. For someone raised in that most Evangelical of American denominations seeking something more traditional and sacramental the Anglican Communion seemed like the perfect thing- a way to practice and believe in the sacraments while not having to say necessarily that my Evangelical family was completely wrong.

In other words, I went for the fudge.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

What is existentialism? You used the word, what is the context?

Emotionalism over reason, thinking with your feelings and "needs" opposed with logic.

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

What is existentialism? You used the word, what is the context?

Emotionalism over reason, thinking with your feelings and "needs" opposed with logic.

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

What is existentialism? You used the word, what is the context?

Emotionalism over reason, thinking with your feelings and "needs" opposed with logic.

Rewriting your the bolded clause: Liberal youth of the West who think with their feelings and "needs" opposed with logic. Whose logic? Where's the logic in the Orthodox Church and where's the logic in Anglicanism or any other Christian group?

There has to be for people to worship in Anglican Churches (or any other religion).

Your experience of the Orthodox faith is not like anyone else's. You converted fairly quickly, as a reaction to your domestic situation. A 16 year old transgendered person may feel rejected by the Orthodox Church and accepted by the Anglican Church. Some Orthodox priests deny Holy Communion to women who don't wear headcoverings and the Anglican Church offers the chalice to all. Where's the logic?

Pseudo-liturgicalism that can appeal to the dissatisfied, existential liberal youth of the West who want order and direction in their lives religiously, but not fully, because they don't want to let go of their relativistic postmodern worldview.

"Pseudo-liturgicalism"? Would you please explain what you mean by that term?

Also would you please post on what your personal experiences or knowledge of anything in the Episcopal Church (U.S.) or any other part of the Anglican Communion are that you have to use as a basis for such a statement?

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I was raised in the Episcopal Church, so I didn't exactly choose to become an Anglican, but I was an active Episcopalian for over 40 years before becoming Orthodox. Anglicanism has changed a lot in my lifetime, but the tensions that are currently stretching the Anglican communion to the breaking point were implicitly there from the time that the Church of England (CofE) broke with Rome in the mid-16th century. During the reign of Elizabeth I, there was an intentional and largely successful effort (for awhile) to make the CofE as comprehensive as possible of different doctrinal positions ranging from Zwinglianism to Calvinism to non-papal Catholicism, while at the same time maintaining liturgical uniformity via the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). It has to be admitted that, whatever its theological shortcomings (and there are major ones from an Orthodox perspective), the BCP in its classic form is a work of liturgical and literary genius. The King James Version of the Bible (translated by Anglican divines early in the 17th century) has been and still is a powerful source of spiritual edification and inspiration to Christians of many different traditions. Likewise, Anglicanism developed a magnificent treasury of hymnody which is also drawn on by Western Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants as integral parts of their worship. I think it is fair to say that Anglicanism has made invaluable contributions to the development of worship in the English language. Rome has recently given official recognition to this by erecting Anglican-use ordinariates in several countries. Traditional Anglican worship, whether high, middle, broad, or low, is simultaneously majestic and restrained. But since the late 19th century the old uniformity of Anglican worship has been breaking down as the various theological strains within Anglicanism have sought to express themselves more distinctively through different forms of worship. At the same time the various theological traditions within Anglicanism have diversified even further, to the point that it has become difficult, if not impossible, for certain groups of Anglicans to remain in communion with each other. It is a sad, but perhaps inevitable, development.

Sure it has a piano, but what is particularly fake about this? There is good to look for in these churches and we can't simply paint them with a broad brush.

Thanks for sharing that, and I agree - high church Anglicanism has a lot of beauty to it, regardless of low church and liberal Anglicanism.

If you are suggesting that high-church Anglicanism cannot exist in a liberal Anglican context, you are wrong. I can think of a parish about 20 minutes from my apartment that is very high-church, and also has an openly gay priest.

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?

If you are suggesting that high-church Anglicanism cannot exist in a liberal Anglican context, you are wrong. I can think of a parish about 20 minutes from my apartment that is very high-church, and also has an openly gay priest.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was effectively saying I dislike liberal Anglicanism.

If you are suggesting that high-church Anglicanism cannot exist in a liberal Anglican context, you are wrong. I can think of a parish about 20 minutes from my apartment that is very high-church, and also has an openly gay priest.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was effectively saying I dislike liberal Anglicanism.

What do you mean by "liberal Anglicanism?" Do you mean only those who go as far as Bishop Spong, or are you including the large bulk of the Episcopal Church? And why exactly should you dislike "liberal Anglicanism" any more than you do conservative Anglicanism? From the perspective of the Orthodox Church, neither group is the Church. One is no more or less close to being the Church than the other; both are totally outside of it.

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?

I think also that it should be understood that the high church-mid-low church are one area of variation that does not equate necessarily with political views, social views etc. Also that the "bones" as it were, of all of the various "levels" are the same as in the structure of the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Occasional Services and other texts along with the Bible (which for us does include the Apocrypha).

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I think also that it should be understood that the high church-mid-low church are one area of variation that does not equate necessarily with political views, social views etc. Also that the "bones" as it were, of all of the various "levels" are the same as in the structure of the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Occasional Services and other texts along with the Bible (which for us does include the Apocrypha).

I realize, which is why I meant "low" and "liberal" as two separate things. There are plenty of conservative low churchers, and liberal high churchers that I'm aware of.

What do you mean by "liberal Anglicanism?" Do you mean only those who go as far as Bishop Spong, or are you including the large bulk of the Episcopal Church? And why exactly should you dislike "liberal Anglicanism" any more than you do conservative Anglicanism? From the perspective of the Orthodox Church, neither group is the Church. One is no more or less close to being the Church than the other; both are totally outside of it.

I mean "liberal Anglicanism" in a loose sense to encompass those that are socially and/or theologically liberal. So I suppose those like Bishop Spong as well as the large majority of the TEC.

I don't think a group needs to be part of the Church or not for me to like or dislike certain elements. For example, I don't like the groups that encourage extreme liturgical abuse in the Roman Church, but that doesn't mean they need to be part of the Orthodox Church for me to dislike them. That said, I don't take a hard position that Anglicans (or Roman Catholics) are absolutely outside the Church - I prefer the more vague Orthodox ecclesiology that arises on here sometimes.

Also, I'm not trying to being offensive or disrespectful. I'm sorry if I came across that way.

I guess the draw of Anglicanism for me was that, at its best, it has sought to get back to the consensus of the Church from the first five centuries. Along the way, I have also admired the writings of NT Wright and CS Lewis, of which I read much on my journey.

Of course, Anglicanism as an instituion has not always been at its best, as within its walls there have been diverse factions/forces threatening to pull it apart. However, for me, I idenitify with what I see as being the central expression (not too high, too low, or too hazy) of Anglicanism, and that is in the reformed catholic doctrine of the BCP and the Articles along with the theological insights of Hooker and the Caroline Divines, as well as the beauty of the KJV, hymnody, liturgy, etc.

I'm Episcopalian because they let women and gay people be priests. That, and they support using reason to enhance your faith. As a plus, in Episcopalians in my area play a very vital role in the community, and help the poor around here whenever they can.

Edit: I realize that not all Anglicans are liberal, but we can comfortably co-exist.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 06:46:42 PM by Rowan »

Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul